tv Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace FOX December 4, 2016 9:00am-9:59am EST
i'm chris wallace. president-elect trump takes a victory lap and previews what's in store when he takes the oath of office next month. >> i'm going to discuss our action planning to make america great again. >> and trump is already acting, intervening to keep jobs in the u.s. and naming a retired marine general to lead the pentagon. >> we are going to appoint "mad dog" mattis as our secretary of defense. >> then, insults fly when top officials from the clinton and trump campaigns meet at a harvard forum. >> i would rather lose than win the way you guys did. >> no, you wouldn't. >> yes. >> we'll get the latest on that and the trump transition live from top adviser kellyanne
conway. then, green party presidential nominee jill stein, who's pushing for recounts in three states donald trump won narrowly. it's a "fox news sunday" exclusive. plus, we'll ask our sunday panel what democrats should do now after their members in the house re-elect nancy pelosi as their leader. and our power play of the week. veterans training service dogs and healing themselves. >> a human/animal bond has worked better than any other intervention that i'm aware of. >> all right now on "fox news sunday." and hello again from fox news in washington. this week donald trump demonstrated for any doubters still out there just how unconventional a president he will be. intervening directly to keep a thousand jobs from going to mexico, holding a campaign-style rally, where he continued to bash the media, and holding conversations with foreign leaders that break with decades
of u.s. diplomacy. joining me now from trump transition headquarters in new york, kellyanne conway, one of mr. trump's top advisers. kellyanne, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thanks for having me, chris. >> let's start with the controversy over the call that mr. trump took this week from taiwan's president. the first time leaders of our two countries have, to the best of our knowledge, spoken since the u.s. broke off relations in 1979. now, you say that mr. trump was fully briefed, knew what he was doing before this call, which raises the question, does he intend to change a one-china policy, which recognizes only beijing? >> president-elect trump is well aware of our one-china policy. he accepted a congratulatory call from the president. they've talked to the prime ministers or presidents of
israel, singapore, japan, china. >> but this one's different. the question, i guess, is, does this signal a change in policy, or was it just a phone call? >> it was just a phone call at this point. it signals the fact that he accepted a congratulatory call. i know china has a perspective on it. the white house and state department probably have a perspective on it. certainly taiwan has a perspective on it. the president-elect's perspective is he accepted a congratulatory call. when he's sworn in as commander in chief, he'll make clear the fullness of his plans. but people shouldn't read too much into it. some of the press coverage, not here necessarily, is really astonishing when you think about how it was covered when barack obama was going to try to reach out to iran and come up with an iran nuclear deal. this man received -- the president-elect received a phone call from a world leader in another country. we know about one-china.
he knows about one-china. he's routinely briefed on these matters. that just is what it is. >> i think one of the reasons such a big deal was made of it is because of the fact that the president-elect has had a number of controversial phone calls with foreign leaders. he reportedly told pakistani prime minister sharif he would, quote, play any role you want me to play to address and find solutions to the country's problems, despite pakistan's relationship with terrorists. he also spoke with philippine president duterte, who's been accused of ordering the murder of thousands of suspected drug dealers, which raises the question, kellyanne, why is mr. trump refusing the state department's offer to brief him before these calls, and why is he skipping the daily briefings, intelligence briefings, that president obama gets every day? >> he's not always skipping those briefings. he's briefed by any number of credible sources on these
issues. i think people, chris, frankly, are cherry picking about these world leaders. they're accusing the president-elect of somehow countenancing some of these behaviors in these other places. look, that's really unfair when you think about we just had an election and the opponent, hillary clinton, who was the secretary of state, was using the state department to get money from foreign governments like saudi arabia, which doesn't even respect girls and women. so i think people just have their hair on fire, particularly those who are still entrenched in the campaign, trying to reverse the election results. let's give this man time to form his cabinet. he's also showing respect to the current president, president obama, who's still the president for about 6 1/2 more weeks and the commander in chief, certainly. he's not out there -- president-elect trump is not out there making policy or announcing new policy prescriptions worldwide. he's merely taking phone calls. he will, i'm sure, reengage with many of these world leaders once
he takes the oath of office. >> speaking of people with hair on fire, last week you went on several of the other sunday talk shows to express the concern of trump supporters about the consideration of mitt romney as secretary of state. here's a clip. >> i'm hearing from people saying, hey, my parents died penniless, but i gave $216 to donald trump's campaign, and i would feel betrayed. >> i know that you say mr. trump gave you permission, but there's a bigger question, which is, is that a proper way to treat somebody who is talking about accepting a role in public service? >> well, first, the president-elect has said he gave me permission. he's quoted in "the new york times" and elsewhere saying that, and that's actually true. i would not say something publicly that i hadn't expressed privately. i would never purposely embarrass him. he has my respect and my duty, frankly, my service. >> i'm not talking about mr. trump. i'm talking about mr. romney. is that an appropriate way to treat a guy who is just
discussing public service, to say people are going to feel betrayed? >> first of all, i'm reflecting the news, not trying to make the news. i was astonished, chris, that in a week when president-elect trump told "the new york times" on the record he would relook at water boarding, relook at the paris accords on climate change, he was not particularly interested in focusing on prosecuting hillary clinton any further because he was focused on health care and immigration. he understands other agencies and individuals are charged with that responsibility. but in a week when he said that, the breathtaking backlash was really about this particular prospective cabinet member. i would turn the question around and ask, was it appropriate for governor romney to stick his neck out so far in attacking donald trump? never walking it back, never encouraging people to support the nominee once mr. trump had won the nomination fairly and squarely.
i've spoken my piece on that. certainly the president-elect knows and i said publicly and will say here again, whatever he chooses and whomever he chooses has my full support and backing. he knows that. >> let me just quickly follow up on that. clearly romney is under consideration. we just showed a picture of them having dinner on tuesday night. if mr. trump picks romney, what are you going to say to those trump supporters who areobetray? >> i'm going to say to those trump supporters what i say to those who did not vote for the new president-elect, chris, some of whom seem to have a hard time accepting the fact he's their president. i'm going to say you have to work together. you have to accept his judgment. the man is brilliant. the man is the best negotiator. he's the best connector and communicator. obviously, he just pulled off the upset of the century, perhaps. you have to trust his instincts and judgment. it's certainly what inspires me daily to work with him.
everyone, i hope, will accept that. the president-elect and the president-elect alone will make the decision as to whom he should have serving him at the highest levels of government. >> lest talk about mr. trump's instincts. he went to to celebrate after his intervention the fact that carrier is going to keep a thousand jobs in the state. here he is. >> companies are not going to without consequences. not going to happen. it's not going to happen. >> but in an editorial friday with the headline "trump's carrier shakedown," "the wall street journal" said america won't become more prosperous by forcing companies to make noneconomic investments. a nation gets rich when individuals and businesses are allowed to take risks as they see fit in a competitive economy. how a have to tell you that's free market works and that politicians shouldn't be picking winners and losers.
sarah palin calls this an example of crony capitalism. >> well, the president-elect just simply disagrees. if you look at what happened, this is what leaders do. certainly what people who have been wildly successful in building businesses across the globe as the president-elect has been. you produce. you deliver. you achieve results. everybody looks at the result here, which is about 1100 workers are going to stay in indiana. his running mate, the vice president-elect, is the governor of indiana. i think together they worked with carrier. everybody is looking at it as a schtick. there are incentives here. they worked with carrier to find a way to save those jobs. it's astonishing to see this happen. the current president could have done it. he never did it. the president-elect did it before he's sworn in. $7 million in incentives carry over ten years. about $700,000 per year in incentives is part of this deal.
that's about $785, maybe $800 per worker. people have to put this in perspective before they act like it's some type of big-footed intervention. this guy ran from day one on bringing back jobs. he's already delivered. >> i want to get into two more subjects with you. one, harvard's stuinstitute of politic where is the winning and losing sides of the campaignis s get together and have an academic review. it twhaubt way this year. it got pretty ugly. here are some of the exchanges between you and clinton communications director jennifer palmieri. here they are. >> do you think i ran a campaign where white supremacists had a platform? >> it did. it really did. it's providing a platform for white supremacists. if it makes me a brilliant tactician, i'm glad to have lost. i would rather lose than win the way you did.
>> no, you wouldn't. >> yes, yes. >> that's very. no, you wouldn't, respectfully. >> what did you take away from that? >> well, the rest of the exchange was me telling her and her team as politely as i could you missed america. a lot of voters had a hard time accepting hillary clinton as this outsider disrupter who was ethically clean and would treat all americans fairly. we had an economic message for a lot of working america. the idea that -- they can say what they want about me and my team. we've got very broad shoulders over here, as you can imagine. but to besmerch over 60 million hard working men and women in this country who became part of the trump movement, to pretend donald trump was not out there every single day, sometimes four, five, seven stops in a single day, bringing his case directly to the american people
and saying what to them. that we're going to reform the veterans' administration, which leaves veterans to die. that we're going to stand by law enforcement and the thin blue line. that he's going to create 25 million jobs over five years, have an infrastructure program, repeal and replace obamacare, which has really reduced the quality, choirce, and access. he's going to defeat radical islamic terrorism in the face of hillary clinton referring to them as our determined enemies and president obama saying they're the jv team that's been brushed back. nobody believes that. so to besmirch those voters is beyond the pale. that was a 2 1/2 hour forum. i had already credited them as brilliant strategists, people i respected as professionals. that was all done. there was no grace, no congratulations for them. frankly, there's no self-awareness that they lost the election because they missed america. they blamed bernie sanders. they blamed jim comey.
it's typical of hillary clinton. in hillary clinton's world, it's always somebody else's fault. >> all right. one last thing. i'm glad to see this was such an academic discussion. finally, we're going to, in a couple moments, have jill sign it on the program, the green party presidential nominee who is pushing recounts in wisconsin, gaeylvania. what do you say to her about those efforts? >> i say to herri inher, give i. even your friends in the clinton campaign have admitted that these recounts will not change any results. hillary clinton gained avote, c. i read one article that said at this pace, hillary clinton could change the election results in wisconsin in 74 1/2 years. i don't think america is going to sit around and wait for that to happen. the people have spoken. i was asked on this program and many others that will you accept the election results. the question for jill stein and hillary clinton and those still
in the grief, anger, and denial stages, will you start moving over to acceptance and let this president-elect and vice president-elect get on with the business of government, have a peaceful transfer of power? the other thing is, i'm just astonished how jill stein is now the favorite flavor of the left. they ignored her and ridiculed her. a lot of their friends made sure she had no coverage and no oxygen. >> well, i have to cut you off so we can get her on the show. >> go ahead. wish her well for me. it's good to be gracious and to admit what you see in front of you. in this case, donald trump won 306 electoral votes, 30 of 250 states. it wasn't even close. fblgts ke anne, thank you. thanks for your time today. >> thanks, chris. up next, we'll bring in our sunday group to discuss donald trump not waiting until he's sworn in to start acting like the president. plus, what would you like it ask the panel about trump's deal with carrier to keep a thousand jobs here? go to facebook or twitter @foxnewssunday. we may use your question on the air.
i think it's very presidential. and if it's not presidential, that's okay. that's okay. because i actually like doing it. >> donald trump speaking at carrier plant it indianapolis this week after working out a deal to keep a thousand jobs there from moving to mc. it's time now for our sunday group. monica crowley, editor and
columnist for the washington times. fox news political analyst, juan williams. lisa lerer, who covers politics for the associated press. and from "the wall street journal," kimberly strassel. kimberly, you're part of the group that wrote that editorial we just spoke to kellyanne conway about. what about the argument that, look, this was a powerful, symbolic message that president trump is going to have american workers' backs, and when he gets into office in a month, that then he can begin macro economic changes like cutting tax and rolling back regulations. >> i agree with all of that. politically, this was very, very smart. it was a campaign promise he made, and he fulfilled it. i'm saying economically, this is not really the way you want to run an economy. we just had a president who for eight years decided they were going to politically allocate capital in the country, pick
winners and losers. we were very critical of him for doing that. this is a similar version of this. these companies are not leaving the united states because they're anti-american or want to stick it to indiana. they're following the laws of economics. it's too expensive to do business here. so mr. trump has a choice. he can go from company to company, thousands of them, and sort of beat all of them into submission and threaten them with tariffs, or focus -- and i think this is what he's going to do -- on mac kroeconomic policy, like cutting tax. >> but he's also talking about tariffs and punitive tax. in fact, we should say he's on a twitter storm this morning. he's talking about that. >> if you're going to talk about the long-term economy and how you keep businesses here, i think there's a real risk that if you start doing that and saying that people aren't going to build their businesses in the united states in the first place because they'll be too worried what about they have to do if they want to leave. so this is just -- this is something governors do. the president of the united states has got more resources to
do bigger policies. >> i want to play another clip from mr. trump's speech at that cincinnati rally on thursday night. here it is. >> the era of economic surrender is over. we're going to fight for every last american job. it's time to remove the rust from the rust belt and usher in a new industrial revolution. we're going to do it. >> we ask you for questions for the panel. we got this on twitter from someone named steelers slob. for taxpayers, is it better for the government to assist businesses, or is it better for the free market to weed out the weak? lisa, we should point out all this happened on the same week that the unemployment rate hit a nine-year low of 4.6%. but how do you answer steelers slob? >> well, i think a lot of people -- >> and i want you to use his name in answering. >> well, steelers slob, i think a lot of people in washington would pick the latter, would say the free market. you see that in the reaction to this carrier deal. it wasn't just "the wall street
journal" editorial board that took issue with it. so did bernie sanders. so did larry summers. so did sarah palin. i think what we are seeing, you know, what washington can take away from this decision by mr. trump is that this is a new bland of politics. this is going to be trumpism, not republicanism, not democraticism, but trumpism. so i think that's certainly sending a little bit of a chill and a little bit of a sense of foreboding up to capitol hill. people don't quite know what they can expect other than something fairly unpredictable. >> monica, i want to turn to another subject i talked about with kellyanne. that was president-elect trump's phone calls with foreign leaders, especially with the president of taiwan. you heard the question i asked her. should he be better briefed? should he be accepting state department briefings? should bhel tahe be taking the presidential daily brief? should he be getting all the briefings he can before he steps
into this world of diplomatic nuance? >> well, the president-elect is getting regular briefings from people he trusts, experts like general flynn, who will be the income national security adviser. he's incredibly well briefed. before he takes these phone call thes. the phone call was a congratulatory phone call. from my understanding, it was only about ten minutes. they discussed a range of issues. i think donald trump was elected not reinforce the status quo but to shake up the status quo, to challenge the conventional ways of doing things. this conversation -- donald trump understands one-china policy very well. there will be plenty of time to discuss the whole range of issues regarding china and the pacific rim once he's sworn in. he also understands it's important for the president-elect and then the president of the united states to stand for freedom and to stands with those who challenge those who would oppress them. that includes the chinese government. i don't know what his policy will be with regard to china
once he's president of the united states. what i do know is he felt he was incredibly important to send a signal that, yes, he will take a whole new look at the range of issues. >> so juan, are you persuaded by monica, or -- i mean, is the media making too big a deal of these phone calls? >> no. but let me just say, i think to his supporters, there's not much donald trump can do at this point that would cause them some offense. the idea is that we shouldn't take him literally, that he's acting on a symbolic level, whether it's with carrier or the phone call ths. in terms of the journalism, the national security community, the diplomatic community here in washington is appalled by this. you mentioned not taking the daily briefings. it's also not been consulting with the state department about how do i prepare to talk if i decide i want to do this and
change the policy. how do i talk to this person in an effective way? we've already seen china file a formal complaint about the call. clearly, it's had an impact there. it's having an impact in terms of our global relationships. going forward, there are questions about, well, what about his business dealings? as you know, it came up this week. you have ethics people here in washington saying, oh, well, he should make sure that he is totally divested. trump has not agreed to that. when he's meeting with prime minister abe of japan and brings in his daughter when he's talking to the british about windmills near his golf courses, people are like, what is going on here? >> i think this uproar is totally overwrought. a lot of this is being driven by state department function theirs who are very unhappy that donald trump is not coming to them. i think the other point is that
you got o look at what donald trump says and also what he does. to me, the far more important message that got send this week to the world was the appointment, the names of "mad dog" mattis as secretary of defense. if was pyongyang or tehran, that's what i'd be paying attention to. this is a very clear-eyed general who understands world politics very well and is going to be a lot tougher than this current administration. >> before we end this segment, lisa, i want to get to you. you were at this forum at harvard about rehashing the campaign. how ugly did it get? >> it got pretty ugly. i think it's important to talk about what this normally is. this is normally a very state affair where they sip coffee and eat canapes as they discuss their strategy for the historical record. that's not what this was. this felt almost like a collective nervous breakdown. it wasn't just ugliness between the two campaigns, who really
were reduced to shouting on numerous occasions. republican campaign managers heckled cnn president jeff zucker. pollster nate silver came in for some heckling. there was a lot of tension. i think it really shows how raw these divides still are. it certainly sends a little bit of a foreboding sign for our politics going forward. it doesn't feel like there's going to be an awful lot of kumbaya moments in our future. maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised. >> monica, you surprised the clinton camp is still so bitter? >> they are so bitter. i was talking to people on the trump transition, people who served on the campaign. i think they're surprised it remains so raw. the challenge for a president-elect donald trump -- and this was one of his core messages during the campaign -- is that he was going to try to unify the country, bring everybody together. i think the one way, the most effective way for him to do that is create a booming economy. if the economy is roaring, that will likely silence a lot of his
technically still hasn't. a recount is currently under way in wisconsin with additional mi pennsylvania. joining us now to discuss her push for the recounts is green party presidential nominee dr. jill stein. you say your goal here is not to change the results of the election but to ensure the accuracy of the count.y then, d you choose three trump won narrowly but not a state that secretary clinton won much more narrowly, new hampshire, which she won by only 3 thou 3,000 votes? >> we didn't go into new hampshire mainly because the deadly for filing a recount had passed. two of the states had gone to donald trump. michigan information stiwas sti. if we find evidence there's a systemic problem with these machines, which are extremely
unreliable, prone to error, human error and machine error, as well as to hacking and security breaches, if we find evidence that there's a systemic problem, we need to expand the recount, in my view. that's what the american voters are calling for. an election result and a voting system we have confidence in. >> let me ask you a question, dr. stein. do you know the largest switch of votes in a recount in american political history? >> well, i can tell you one, for example, in toledo in 2004. there were 90,000 votes that were marked blank, which were discovered actually not to be blank at all. those -- when a hand recount was done. that would have been enough to have changed the outcome in ohio. unfortunately, that wasn't found until after the election was already called. >> but the biggest actual switch of votes in any election in u.s. history was back in 2000 when roughly 1200 votes were switched
from bush to gore. we're talking about three states, michigan, pennsylvania, and wisconsin, that donald trump won by more than 10,000 votes. so there's not a chance in the world here, dr. stein, that the vote is change in those three straates. >> actually the, in michigan, there are 75,000 votes which are blank, which are sky high, compared to other past elections. they're concentrated in detroit. that's 75,000 votes which may very well be machine error or human error. that is about seven times the margin of difference in michigan. so these results icouldoutcome,t know that until we examine the evidence. that means a hand ballots. >> but it's never happened. there's nev b switch. the most there's ever been 1,247. >> that's actually not true. if the recounts were done in
time, they could affect could well be 75,000. >> i'm talking about recounts that actually happened, not ones that eou don't do them. tat we we should do them. have a system we can trust. right now, as you know, chris,u. we need to address the fundamental concerns of the american voter. >> dr. stein, let's stata point here. lest look at how much moneyrais runs. in 2012, in 2016, $3.5 million. for hthis recount, you've raise more than $6.3 million. this is about,
using the recount it raise money? >> this money is going strictly into a segregated account which can only be spent on the recount. so this money is entirely -- will be completely used, and we'll be lucky if we can cover the cost at the rate that there is a bait and switch going on here. in wisconsin, we just saw this triple. to my mind, it really underscores why we need a fundamentally secure voting system that has built-in safeguards that should have automatic audits, recounts. we need to get rid of these electronic touch screens which have been proven highly vulnerable to tampering, to hacking, to human and machine error. >> so the fact you have 140,000 donors is purely coincidental, dr. stein? >> well, put it this way. the american people have made it very clear what they want done here. chris, coming out of this election, 80% of americans -- >> where do you get off saying
the american people are calling for this? i think the vast majority of the american people think we should accept the result of the election. >> 80% of americans said they were disgusted with this election. >> i don't think -- it may have been the choice they had. i don't think it was the stock market or a demand for a recount. >> this is a time that people have an entire loss of faith in our plit quality institutions. the way the money is coming in from small donors makes it very clear. in fact, polls. a poll just last week showed the american people support the recount and that they feel that if donald trump was in the reverse position, he would be doing exactly the same thing. remember, he said that it was a rigged system and that he was not going to accept the result. he's articulated what many americans feel. it's time to respect the views of the american voter and ensure that we have a system we can trust. >> you've now decided --
if i may ask my question, dr. stein. you've decided to go to the federal court to try to get a recount in philadelphia after the state court said that up have to post or your supporters would have to million-dollar bond. you said they can't afford that. you're going to hold a news conference tomorrow in front of trump tower. what's he got to do with it? >> we want to conference where america will see that we are standing up for every day americans who do not have confidence in this election system, who have lost confidence in oursystem. and we're standing up loud and strong to say that we will not be intimidated, will not be frightened by having to jump through all these legal hoops. we say what is donald trump frightened of? he's obstructing, delaying these cases -- >> dr. stein, how many votes did you get in this election? >> excuse me, how did donald trump get?
>> he got 62.5 million votes. >> less than hillary clinton. >> he got 62.5 million votes. how many votes did you get, dr. stein? could you answer the question? how many votes did you get? >> i am not going to be the beneficiary of this one way or the other. that's why i can do this. >> but he got 62.25 million votes. how many did you get? the question is who's speaking for american voters, him or you? >> this is not about donald trump. it's not about hillary clinton. it's not about my campaign. it's not about gary johnson. this is about the american voters, who deserve to have a voting system we can trust. when something like 75,000 votes in detroit may, in fact, be an error because -- why would people come out in detroit, fill in all the other positions but not vote for president? this is a little bit suspicious. we deserve to know what's going on. that could, in fact, change the outcome of the vote in michigan. >> in the third presidential debate, dr. stein, i asked
donald trump whether he would accept the result of the election and the for instanprin the peaceful transfer of power. >> what i'm saying is i will tell you at time. i'll keep you in suspension. >> chris, let me respond to that. that's horrifying. every time donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is, is rigged against him. >> dr. stein, at that time, a lot of liberals' heads exploded because donald trump wouldn't accept the results of the election. aren't you doing precisely now? aren't you doing what hillary clinton called horrifying? >> i'm not here to help hillary clinton or express her point of view. in my view, the recount should have happened in the democratic primary as well, where there were also very suspicious results, where voters appeared to be stripped from the rolls in brooklyn, where hundreds of thousands of votes went uncounted in california. this is not about helping
democrats. it's not about helping republicans. >> i didn't ask you that. i asked you why not accept the results of the election. what you're going is exactly what hillary clinton said was horrifying. >> i'm not -- i don't care what hillary clinton thinks about this. i don't care. i care what the voters think about this, not what the politicians or the pundits or the party operatives think about this. this is about responding to the american voters who are standing up and saying, we deserve an election system that we can trust. and that is accurate, that is secure against hacking, against human error, against machine error, and that in which the votes are being counted. right now it's not clear that all the votes are being counted. we deserve that so we can go trust.d with an election system >> dr. stein, thank you. thanks for joining us today. we'll stay on top of the recount. >> thank you. up next, we'll bring back the panel. what's next for the democrats after nancy pelosi was re-elected to lead her party in the house?
i have this special spring in my step today because this opportunity is a special one to lead the house democrats, bring everyone together as we go forward. >> congresswoman nancy pelosi reacting to her re-election as house minority leader after beating back a challenge from ohio congressman tim ryan. we're back now with the panel. house democrats have had a bad run under pelosi. le let's take a look. after the 2008 election when barack obama won, they held 257 seats in the house. after this election on november 8th, they now hold 194. that's a loss of 63 seats. juan, how do you explain house
democrats putting her back as their leader? >> she's a tremendous fundraiser. there's no question about it. secondly, in this environment where you just had, you know, potentially the first woman for presidency defeated on the democratic side, i think women on the hill have rallied to her support. don't forget, so much of the base of the party in congress comes from california, the west coast, and the east coast. so she's there for them. she can still do it. tim ryan, who was running against her, as you pointed out, from ohio, said he could each out, do better with blue collar that distinct. if you look at pelosi, steny hoyer, these a all politicians in their 70s who have suffered defeat after defeat and the decimation of democrats on capitol hill and also in state governments around the country. also another point to be mde the people who vote democratic these days disproportionately millennials, young people. they voted overwhelmingly for
hillary clinton. yet, they don't see it represented in this leadership, all in their 70s, and who don't seem to be in touch with a new, more vibrant message that, energetic activism. >> you're saying they did it for the old reasons, the old-fashioned inside political reasons, but in terms of appealing to the country and the future, not so smart. >> not so smart. the question is, how do you then get this older group that's ensconced and has the money, because you're going to have to rebuildrty. there's an argument about who's going to run the democratic national committee. the question is, how you rebuild and what's the mess an going forward? i don't see these folks are the ones you would want to entrust with that new message. >> kim, let me bring you into this conversation. it was clear from this election that house democrats do message millions of american voters, millennials, working rural. why do you think they kept
pelosi? >> part of this is nancy pelosi's failure, for all of those reasons, has solidified her role there. at this point, one-third of all house democrats fail from just three states in the country. new york, massachusetts, and everyone that was in opposing voice in that caucus has been driven out of the party, lost elections because of the very liberal governance of nancy pelosi and harry reid and barack obama. so there are no voices left. of course they re-elected her because this is what's left of the party. it was amazing when i listened to that harvard forpulumforum. the most extraordinary thing that came out of this is democrats put their heads in the sand about why they lost this. they believe television jim comey, the media was mean to them. they lost because people disagree with their politics. >> let's talk about another face of the democratic party.
that's the front runner to be the new chair of the democratic national committee, congressman keith ellison. the first muslim el elected to congress. the anti-defamation league says a speech that ellison made in 2010 where he said u.s. foreign policy run out of israel, they call that speech, quote, disqualifying. so what does it say that he may be the front runner to be the face of the democratic party? >> and that's one problematic example with representative ellison. in addition, in the past he's called for a separate black state in america. he also has very close ties to the council on american-islamic relations. he's politically very far out there on the left. the fact that the democratic party is now seriously considering him as its head tells you where the party is. this is no longer bill clinton's democratic party. this is barack obama's democratic party. obama over the last eight years has taken the party, moved it from centered left all the way to the far left.
and it turns out that the coalition that elected him and re-elected him was unique to him. and that without him on the ticket, they suffered mass i have losses. 2010, 2014, and now 2016. a big part of this, which gets to what we were talking about earlier with the carrier deal and so on, is that democrats have ignored, blown off, disrespected the works class, and it's not the first time they have done this. these people who came out for donald trump, a lot of them independents and democrats disaffected from their own party, came out for richard nixon, came out for ronald reagan. unless and until this democratic party leaves behind barack obama going to continue to suffer these kind of electoral losses. >> i want to talk about our previous guest, jill stein. lisa, what do you make of her recount everett? >> look, hillary clinton's
campaign did a very expensive assessment of voting irregularities and the vote in all the states. they investigated every theory that people presented to them. they brought in outside academics, technologists. they found no evidence of any kind of systemic flaw in the system, whether it's hacking or failed machines. so this is very, very unlikely to change the results of this election. so you have to wonder why is jill stein pursuing this so hard. of course, the integrity of our elections is very important, but i think this is good business for jill stein even though the money is in a separate account. she compiles a list of supporters she can take. that's what third parties need to build up their brand. on the flip side, donald trump is acting very aggressively to stop these recounts. you kind of have to wonder why he's doing that as well, given that it's unlikely to change the outcome. in the words of a disney princess, you wonder why he doesn't just let it go. >> wow. a "frozen" reference there.
that's a first. >> he's creating a certain amount of smoke around it as well that could make some people wonder whether there's something real here. they may find some kind of irregular lir todays, but it's unlikely to have an back on who the president is going to be. >> if i could interject here, i think that the real answer to your question would be ballot access, building a third rtstro. she said the money is segregated now in a separate account, but i think what you're going to find is that once we go beyond this, she's going to say the green party is stronger, it's the voice of people who were bernie sanders supporters on the left and that we are building a structure that will allow us to be a successful third-party operation in 2020. >> you know, trying to stop it completely is another thing. >> i think it would be criminal malpractice for donald trump not to take this seriously.
there's one reason jill stein is doing there. she was just on your show for ten minutes. that's more time than she's had on any other network. this is jill stein's moment. >> it would also be political malpractice for donald trump to try to resist some of this. people say the recount is pointless. the whole point is to try to delegitimize the election. donald trump is the clear winner. it's trying to sew seeds of doubt that the left can dine on for the next four years. >> wow. i'm glad we got this much discussion on jill stein. the only time my granddaughter would have ever understood anything that was said. thank you, panel. up next, our power player of the week. puppy love, how veterans train therapy dogs and in the process are heali ining themselves. it told me what other people in the area paid for the truck i want. and because we're a truecar certified dealership, i already know the truck he wants.
treating and healing our wound the warriors is one of this nation's top responsibilities. we found someone w to do that. here's our power play of the week. >> there's 30,000 years or so of proven history behind man's best friend. >> good boy. >> rick yount is founder of the warrior canine connection, a unique program that taps into the healing power of dogs. disabled veterans have been getting service dogs ford who b train those dogs than other vets suffering from post-traumatic stress or brain injury.
>> the human-animal bond has worked better than any other intervention that i'm aware of. >> better than drugs? better than >> yes. i was asked how soon does it take for you to see effect in the service members? it's usually about five minutes. >> retired army specialist christian santos was injured in afghanist 2013. his nurse said training dogs like cody could help him. >> depression, anxiety, ptsd. i was really like -- didn't want to socialize with other people. she said try the service dogs program. >> good job! yes! good boy! >> yount says in teaching the dogs, starting as puppies, the vets teach themselves that the world is a safe place. >> these veterans have to challenge their intrusive thoughts. that dumpster door slamming was just a dumpster door. >> oh, you're so good. >> and to show positive emotion.
yount recalls one story. >> learning how to praise this dog and the patience i learned in training this dog has taught me how to connect with my song and it saved my marriage. >> rick b yount was a social worker 20 years ago when he brought his dog driving a sobbing child to foster care. >> what i saw was a 4-month-old golden retriever puppy with his head in his little boy's leg. he was petting this dog. >> now, yount using gabe'serapy. >> he started working with folks, and he's still doing it today. >> at any one time, the warrior canine connection has 30 vets training 65 dogs at four sites across the country. yount says the dogs can tell their trainer's emotional state. >> if the leg is bouncing, we train the dogs to come over and lay their head on the veteran's leg. then we train the veterans who receive the dogs to keep the training going and pet the dog. so it's kind of like a
self-licking ice cream cone. >> over the last five yeerks almost 4,000 vets have helped train these dogs. yount says helped heal themselves. >> i know this has been the difference between life and death by many of the veterans. no question about it. one marine it took ten different medications. he couldn't sleep. >> then they spend time with one of these dogs. >> we had the dog stay overnight with him. the first night he the dog, he had six hours straight through. >> yount wants to scale up the program and open ten new sites. 70% of the funding comes from private donations. if you want to learn more, please go to our website foxnewssunday.com. that's it for today. have a get week, and we'll see you next "fox news sunday."
>> week 13 of the national league season. >> pederson was five and o -- >> and the dawn of december football. when the eagles, just five games to go, in the regular season. >> i mean, most frustrating thing, if we were a bad team, getting blown out, thee things would be one thing. >> the five and six eagles football team with playoff hopes still dancing in their heads. today the trip to the jungle to face daltonian the peng as. inside's -- incites and analysis, as the birds try to climb back to 500, with a matinee in cincinnatiment fox 29 game day live starts right now.